"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Judge Guy continues on his path of - what? Self-destruction or arrogance hoping for complete impunity? Future will show which one it will be

Received yesterday a letter that I already published on this blog, by Judge Guy, dated May 12, 2015, the date when I notified Judge Guy that I know that he is acting in clear absence of all jurisdiction when he made claims to me he is presiding over a case in the Delaware County Surrogate's Court.

As I wrote here before, according to the order of removal and assignment made on April 3, 2015 and filed in the Delaware County Surrogate's Court but never provided to me until I found it myself, the case was removed as of April 3, 2015 to the Delaware County Supreme Court, and Judge Guy was assigned to that removed case in the Supreme Court.

After having learnt that I know of the order of removal and assignment, Judge Guy stubbornly proceeded instructing the clerks of both courts, the court from where the case was removed and of the court where the case was removed, that the order of removal is "erroneous".

To me, Judge Guy has sent a letter denying my request for adjournment (that I made before I learnt that Judge Guy is acting without jurisdiction in the Surrogate's Court).

I already answered that letter by e-mail when I received it e-mail, and that was 4 days ago, and I indicated to Judge Guy that I am abiding by the court order of removal, and to me all his directives in the Surrogate's Court are void.

The only order of assignment of Judge Guy that I have at this time is the one of April 3, 2015.

Judge Guy, who received my response and request to step down from the case because he appears to be unable to read and comprehend such a simply thing as his own order of assignment and attempts to change rules for the only reason that he has been caught breaking them, did not grace me with an answer to my request to step down.

This case is important not only for me.

It is important for pro se litigants who do not have a voice such as my client has, through me as a trained (and independent) attorney, to oppose judicial misconduct of this kind.

Note that Judge Guy stubbornly orders me in his May 12, 2015 letter that he has sent to me by e-mail and mail on May 13, 2015, that my service of process in the Surrogate's Court (the court from which Judge Guy knows the case was removed on April 3, 2015) must abide by the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act (SPCA).

Note that Judge Guy stubbornly claims that the case remains on the calendar of the Delaware County Supreme Court for May 22, 2015 when it was removed from that court's jurisdiction by clear order of Judge Guy's superior, Judge Mulvey, as of April 3, 2015.

The court order of removal and assignment clearly indicates that as of April 3, 2015 the case is in the Supreme Court, and thus I must abide by the CPLR (Civil Practice Law and Rules) and not the SPCA in how the case is served and generally how I need to prosecute it.

Does Judge Guy not know how to read?

Of course, he does.

He simply does not WANT to read what implicates him in misconduct.  And he wants to change the rules, in arrears, so that he is no longer implicated in misconduct.

And that is the problem not specific to me, it is a problem of the entire judicial system of this court and this country - that immunity/impunity of judges, even for malicious and corrupt acts in office, breeds this kind of arrogant disrespect to the law and litigants' rights in judges.

Stay tuned as to how events developed.

No comments:

Post a Comment